• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

JH Kallis v SM Pollock

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
in that list of all-rounders I made I was gonna post a nifty little bonus stat of the player's gap between their bowling and batting averages, and kind of have that as a separate category. But it makes Kallis and Sobers look so far ahead of Kapil and Hadlee as cricketers it's a little silly
 

Bijed

International Debutant
recently i realised that batting over bowling rule for all-rounders goes out the window a bit when youre talking about elite batsman. if you average 47 with the bat and 43 with the ball are you an effective all-rounder? food for thought
Not for me you're not. I think each of your disciplines has to be reasonably close to what you'd consider 'good' for a specialist in that discipline to really be an all-rounder.

I mean, if George Lohmann had averaged 11-12 with the bat, I don't think many people would be calling him an all-rounder.
 

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
Well Sobers must be very, very close to missing the cut off for 'good' bowling averages

Then again that applies to Hadlee with batting


I guess when you're in the top 5 for batting or bowling of all time the fact you can even hold your own in your other discipline is amazing
 
Last edited:

Dendarii

State Vice-Captain
in that list of all-rounders I made I was gonna post a nifty little bonus stat of the player's gap between their bowling and batting averages, and kind of have that as a separate category. But it makes Kallis and Sobers look so far ahead of Kapil and Hadlee as cricketers it's a little silly
It makes sense that it would - while that seems like a natural thing to do it favours the batting all-rounders because the difference in what's regarded as "very good" and "close to good" for batting averages is greater than for bowling averages. So to come up with an effective way of comparing batting all-rounders against bowling all-rounders is tricky, and I doubt whether there's a simple calculation that will do the job.
 

Victor Ian

International Vice-Captain
in that list of all-rounders I made I was gonna post a nifty little bonus stat of the player's gap between their bowling and batting averages, and kind of have that as a separate category. But it makes Kallis and Sobers look so far ahead of Kapil and Hadlee as cricketers it's a little silly
It's not straight out batting average >= bowling average that makes an all rounder but batting average is more than everyone batting average > bowling average. everyone batting avergae is somewhere around 30ish so Starc and co are hady batsmen but not all rounders and Stvee waugh was a handy bowler, but not an all rounder.

As big a fan of Kallis as I am, I think Pollock was the more valuable all rounder, because bowlers win matches. Plus I'm a big fan of Pollock. He was McGrath who could bat
 

smalishah84

The Tiger King
It's not straight out batting average >= bowling average that makes an all rounder but batting average is more than everyone batting average > bowling average. everyone batting avergae is somewhere around 30ish so Starc and co are hady batsmen but not all rounders and Stvee waugh was a handy bowler, but not an all rounder.

As big a fan of Kallis as I am, I think Pollock was the more valuable all rounder, because bowlers win matches. Plus I'm a big fan of Pollock. He was McGrath who could bat
No, McGrath was much harder to get away than Pollock
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Totally different all-rounders who didn't take their other suit seriously enough ?
I think this is harsh. They both could've been better with their secondary skill if they devoted more time to it, but I think this would've come to the detriment of their primarily skill. There are only so many hours in a day you can practice and so much mental and physical energy you can expend throughout a game, so refinement of natural skills is always going to be zero-sum to some extent. I think they probably made the right calls in what they focused on.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
in that list of all-rounders I made I was gonna post a nifty little bonus stat of the player's gap between their bowling and batting averages, and kind of have that as a separate category. But it makes Kallis and Sobers look so far ahead of Kapil and Hadlee as cricketers it's a little silly
Batting AR will generally supersede Bowling AR when this method is used.
It's because it's easier for a batsman to improve his average ( not outs, almost unlimited runs per match) than it is for a bowler to improve his average (only 20 wickets per match)
Or put another way, there's a greater span in what's considered a decent-to-good batting average (35-60, diff of 25) than there is similarly for a bowling average. ( 20-35, diff of 15)
 

RK_123

School Boy/Girl Captain
Kallis was a genuine all rounder.Pollock wasn't all that good with the bat.

So it's Kallis for me.
 

SeamUp

International Coach
I think this is harsh. They both could've been better with their secondary skill if they devoted more time to it, but I think this would've come to the detriment of their primarily skill. There are only so many hours in a day you can practice and so much mental and physical energy you can expend throughout a game, so refinement of natural skills is always going to be zero-sum to some extent. I think they probably made the right calls in what they focused on.
You definitely right. I didn't mean it as a critique as such.

I mean the natural talent they had in their other string was more than enough. They could only put in what they could and give what they could.

I find Kallis the bowler so interesting. The way he started with hooping away swingers at pace with a big wind up of the shoulders. He lost himself for a couple of years as a bowler and then redefined his action and role that he kept chipping in with wickets for many years and could even still bowl 140 if he wanted to near the end at his age.

S.Pollock the batsman is also very interesting. He had all the strokes and he was a fast scorer. I always remember having a chat with my old man and that is if he concentrated on his batting and didn't bowl he could have made the Proteas as a batsman - he had that much talent I felt.
 

srbhkshk

International Debutant
Really depends on the team need, India would kill for someone like Pollock (Kallis too, but Pollock gives more to a team like India). Pakistan might go the exact opposite.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
It is far more difficult for a future cricketer to emulate a Kallis than it is to emulate a S.Pollock.

All bowlers have to bat and by virtue of this can improve their batsmanship.
All batsmen don't have to bowl - only those who have the confidence of their captain to throw them the red cherry.

Thus, from cricket's perspective (as opposed to the team's perspective), Kallis will be remembered much more than S.Pollock in any AR discussion.
 

Bijed

International Debutant
If (and this is probably only a hypothetical situation) you had a batsmen who averages say 40 (or any good batting average, really) and is used constantly as a frontline bowler with a normal workload for such a role but is absolutely rubbish at it, do you call them an all rounder? I think I would, which contradicts my earlier statement.
 

Lillian Thomson

International Coach
If (and this is probably only a hypothetical situation) you had a batsmen who averages say 40 (or any good batting average, really) and is used constantly as a frontline bowler with a normal workload for such a role but is absolutely rubbish at it, do you call them an all rounder? I think I would, which contradicts my earlier statement.
I think that’s a little too hypothetical. It’s hard to imagine someone that bad being constantly used as a frontline bowler. For someone to be considered an all rounder they’d have to bowl with some degree of merit, not just bowl a lot badly.
 

Red Hill

The artist formerly known as Monk
McCabe only really played as a "frontline" bowler when Australia were playing 3 spinners plus Tim Wall. So he wasn't really a frontline bowler by definition, just opening the bowling.

Ganguly did the same sort of thing for India from time to time.
 

srbhkshk

International Debutant
Yeah, I think Ganguly was used a lot like this before Zaheer and Nehra came along, but he isn't really considered much of an all rounder.
 

Top